Is It Constitutional To Ban Happy Meals?

And coke and doritos often entice people with free music downloads and other free things. Why have they not been regulated yet?

See consensus,social norms etc.I'm not advocating for anything,i'm saying they have merit in this decision,and the right to make that call.

And considering the very idea of a pure democracy would be everyone votes, majority decides what happens to everyone....yeah I'd call that tyranny of the majority.

Wonderful,that's not how Tyranny of the majority is defined in a legal sense.If it's,admittedly,Solly, by your own criteria-that's your prerogative...

Good thing the US is not a pure democracy.


Kind of a hard thing to define,don't you think? By today's standards the Athenian democracy isn't a democracy at all....What is "pure" democracy?
Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]For everyone voting "no," why exactly is it unconstitutional?gamerguru100

1)Law is Social norm,period.

And any sociology,social-studies,law,state-science,whatever(go look up your own list),will tell you that.

2)"True and full" democracy is a hard concept to define.

3)Checks on the "democratic process" are subject to the democratic process.If the American congress chose to change the constitution-so that the USA was devoted to the worship of LordXenu,they can. But for the decision to hold it needs to be based on a wide consensus. -The democratic process in a nutshell.

4)"Happy Meals in their current form are not detrimental to /others/ the parents, acting as the legal guardian and upholder/exerciser of the child's rights isn't harming anyone else when they allow their kids to have a happy meal. Thus, they are not using their right to impede on the rights of others."

It's not up to you to decide what's detrimental to persons rights(and by extension- society) that's the work of the legislator and the courts.If there is a consensus that Happy meals make for a great violation on personal children's rights-that's what matters.and that's what counts when balancing with other rights and values.

grape_of_wrath

No, Law and Societal Norms are not interchangeable things. If this were true, we'd have a whole lot of religious law and that we don't currently have.

Pure Democracy is tyranny of the majority, that's what I was referring to as "True and Full". The US does not currently operate a pure/direct democracy. The checks are not up for discussion, as that would violate the nature of the Constitution. Sure, you could hold a constitutional convention to make your example accepted, but then again you need such an overwhelmingly large majority that it's not likely that tyranny will be able to come about. Plus you are forgetting that the US Military is pledged to defend the constitution and would probably remove anyone who sought to turn the Constitution into something it isn't.

You're right, it's not up to me to determine what is detrimental to people. However neither is it up to the legislature in this case. The Constitution is extremely clear here, where there is no reasonable expectation of harm to others (IE purchasing a "unhealthy" hamburger meal) that the government and courts cannot dictate what a person does or pass any legislation to influence it. There is no harm to anyone other than myself if I choose to eat an unhealthy meal and don't exercise afterwards, same goes for the parent/child unit. You're still trampling upon the child's rights by having someone not their parents deciding what is best for them. Are you going to have child services taking away children after their parents' give them a happy meal? Of course not, so you shouldn't be regulating the sale of a happy meal.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

And coke and doritos often entice people with free music downloads and other free things. Why have they not been regulated yet?

See consensus,social norms etc.I'm not advocating for anything,i'm saying they have merit in this decision,and the right to make that call.

And considering the very idea of a pure democracy would be everyone votes, majority decides what happens to everyone....yeah I'd call that tyranny of the majority.

Wonderful,that's not how Tyranny of the majority is defined in a legal sense.If it's,admittedly,Solly, by your own criteria-that's your prerogative...

Good thing the US is not a pure democracy.


Kind of a hard thing to define,don't you think? By today's standards the Athenian democracy isn't a democracy at all....What is "pure" democracy?
grape_of_wrath

The laws definition really doesn't matter in something that really has no place in US law because it isn't a practice of US law, it's a term given to a type of society. A term far older than the US.

A pure democracy would be

Two wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner,

The US is a constituional republic. We vote in people and hope they act as we want. Joe schmoe should not be able to vote on many things.

I wouldn't want a white man in the majority voting on the rights of a minority group.

And yes they have the right to make the call. They also have the right to ban any clothing made of polyester. It'd be stupid and serve no point.

I honestly find it absurd that people somehow think a happy meal (around 700 calories?) once a week=worse than a bag of doritos (like 600 calories) 2 times a day with 4 cans of coke (800 calories total).

Yes surely it's that once a week binge that causes those 200 pound kids. Surely it is not the parents feeding them ice cream, doritos, coke, and chili dogs at home. SURELY those same parents who could care less about their kids health at home will get the healthy more expensive alternative at mcdonalds.

SURELY!

The laws definition really doesn't matter in something that really has no place in US law because it isn't a practice of US law, it's a term given to a type of society. A term far older than the US.

A pure democracy would be

Two wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner

Then that's your way of defining democracy by,most, modern standards,however-A democracy has to have both the concept of the rule of the people by vote,and the protection of the rights of the individual.

They also have the right to ban any clothing made of polyester. It'd be stupid and serve no point.

No,they don't.to make that call they have to have a purpose in accordance with the 'constitutional'Values(Which aren't always in the formal constitution,btw)of the USA ,a wide agreement in the public and ,to pass judicial scrutiny,a lack of a serious harm(resulting in a damage to democracy)to other major constitutional values.

Pixel-Pirate

Technically straight up pure democracy is the very definition of the tyranny of the majority.

Personally I just don't see the point of this. I understand peoples good intentions but this is like banning airsoft guns to stop shooting homicides. Happy meals are not anywhere near the biggest problem of society. Heres a list of things far more important to ban or regulate to fight obesity.

Doritos

Ice cream

Candy

All sodas

Video games

Computers

TV

Cheese

Halloween

Inactivity of any kind.

I'd say all of those (even halloween) contribute more to obesity than a happy meal once a month does.

Pixel-Pirate

All of these relate to happy meals. Holloween? I wouldn't. If you want more candy you are going to have to walk...and San Fran is hilly or so I've heard.

You're right, it's not up to me to determine what is detrimental to people. However neither is it up to the legislature in this case. The Constitution is extremely clear here, where there is no reasonable expectation of harm to others (IE purchasing a "unhealthy" hamburger meal) that the government and courts cannot dictate what a person does or pass any legislation to influence it. There is no harm to anyone other than myself if I choose to eat an unhealthy meal and don't exercise afterwards, same goes for the parent/child unit. You're still trampling upon the child's rights by having someone not their parents deciding what is best for them. Are you going to have child services taking away children after their parents' give them a happy meal? Of course not, so you shouldn't be regulating the sale of a happy meal.

That's why Law represents a change in the social agenda.And that's why we have laws banning theselling of tobacco w/o a proper warning(for andexample that's exactly like the one we are discussing),the values of society change,and with them-legislation changes.And if it comes to a time where the constitution does not fit the values of the society it represents-it will be amended.But that does not matter here-because there is no negation of this legislation by the constitution...
hokies1313

No, but it's the supreme court and they don't care for constitution (slight exaggeration...but only slight).

Actually it's funny because I was just watching a Futurama episoide..."I'm going to allow it."

If anyone gets that, you're awesome.

It's unconstitutional!

I just want my Megamind toys! :x

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

The laws definition really doesn't matter in something that really has no place in US law because it isn't a practice of US law, it's a term given to a type of society. A term far older than the US.

A pure democracy would be

Two wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner

Then that's your way of defining democracy by,most, modern standards,however-A democracy has to have both the concept of the rule of the people by vote,and the protection of the rights of the individual.

They also have the right to ban any clothing made of polyester. It'd be stupid and serve no point.

No,they don't.to make that call they have to have a purpose in accordance with the 'constitutional'Values(Which aren't always in the formal constitution,btw)of the USA ,a wide agreement in the public and ,to pass judicial scrutiny,a lack of a serious harm(resulting in a damage to democracy)to other major constitutional values.

grape_of_wrath

No, thats my way of defining a direct or pure democracy which is different from a repersentitive democracy where representitives are elected to decide things.

And yes they do have the right as long as they can make up an excuse and get some popular backing. The fact this was passable should prove that.

No, but it's the supreme court and they don't care for constitution (slight exaggeration...but only slight).

Actually it's funny because I was just watching a Futurama episoide..."I'm going to allow it."

If anyone gets that, you're awesome.

Chutebox

Could you explain to me how it's unconstitutional and why no one cried about the unconstitutionality of banning various other products?

Goddammit, people. They're banning toys in kids meals. When's the last time you bought a kids meal and why does it matter to you right now? You're not missing out on anything and neither are the tykes who live in San Francisco. Grow up.

No, but it's the supreme court and they don't care for constitution (slight exaggeration...but only slight).Chutebox

Ugh, Jesus Christ it doesn't have a dammed thing to do with the Supreme Court. Please understand the subject before commenting on it.

Constitutional to ban them? No. Wrong to ban them? Yes. I don't see why they should be able to do that although I don't know many details.Nintendevil

What I find stupid is that they only target McDonalds. If they really want to do good, they need to go after kids meals in all the other chains, and might as well stop cereal makers from putting toys in their cereal. JustPlainLucas

Goddammit, people. They're banning toys in kids meals. When's the last time you bought a kids meal and why does it matter to you right now? You're not missing out on anything and neither are the tykes who live in San Francisco. Grow up.

Shad0ki11

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Goddammit, people. They're banning toys in kids meals. When's the last time you bought a kids meal and why does it matter to you right now? You're not missing out on anything and neither are the tykes who live in San Francisco. Grow up.

testfactor888

When's the last time you ordered a kids meal?

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

Goddammit, people. They're banning toys in kids meals. When's the last time you bought a kids meal and why does it matter to you right now? You're not missing out on anything and neither are the tykes who live in San Francisco. Grow up.

Shad0ki11

When's the last time you ordered a kids meal?

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] Perhaps it is you who need to grow up and stop trying to look down on others. A very immature thing to doSapSacPrime

When's the last time you ordered a kids meal?

I'm 21.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

No, but it's the supreme court and they don't care for constitution (slight exaggeration...but only slight).worlock77

Ugh, Jesus Christ it doesn't have a dammed thing to do with the Supreme Court. Please understand the subject before commenting on it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

No, but it's the supreme court and they don't care for constitution (slight exaggeration...but only slight).Chutebox

Ugh, Jesus Christ it doesn't have a dammed thing to do with the Supreme Court. Please understand the subject before commenting on it.

A cursory reading of the thread would have dispelled any misgivings you had. And for the record I am not angry at all, nor was I when I typed that post.

San Francisco did not ban happy meals, and I am annoyed by the fact that people think it did. :P

GabuEx

im annoyed about all the talk of is it constitutional or not. the constitutionhas no provisions or ammendemants stating what bussinesses specifically restraunts can or cannot do when the sale of food involves children.

On topic.I cannot say yes or no becuase i belive the question is phrased incorectlly. its not wherther its constituional but whether the laws in California, San Fransisco specifically and the USFederal laws prohibit or allow such actions. Is it legal or not i cant say im not a law expert. do i agree with it, no i dont.

No, but it's the supreme court and they don't care for constitution (slight exaggeration...but only slight).

Actually it's funny because I was just watching a Futurama episoide..."I'm going to allow it."

If anyone gets that, you're awesome.

Chutebox

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Ugh, Jesus Christ it doesn't have a dammed thing to do with the Supreme Court. Please understand the subject before commenting on it.

worlock77

A cursory reading of the thread would have dispelled any misgivings you had. And for the record I am not angry at all, nor was I when I typed that post.

HECK NO!! This is absolutely RIDICULOUS! Freedom of business! You can't do that! ******* idiots.

What do you think? In a calmer manner.... no I do not believe so.

Whatever slows McDonald's and its empire of dirt food.CRS98

Yes, it's constitutional, but...

no, it isn't appropriate, however...

no, I wouldn't lift a finger to protest such a ban;

nor would I lift a finger to enact such a ban.

There are real societal consequences and costs to the obesity epidemic, so society has an interest in dealing with it. I do not approve of this particular regulation, which I believe to be missing the plot, but Government not only has the right, it has the clear responsibility to regulate commerce, even and especially at the Federal level. It can be argued that regulation of commerce is one of the primary motivations for the creation of the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation failed, partly due to a lack of power to regulate commerce. Local governments have always, and will always have the right to deny anything not specifically granted as a right not to be abridged under the Constitution, and those rights are few in number, very famous, and do not include the right to buy a happy meal.

Seiki_sands

[QUOTE="jman1553"]Seeing as it was the happy meal that really helped to contribute to me becoming really fat as a kid (and still trying to lose the weight now) yeah, I think it should be banned. Those damn toys.... those damn toys are from Hell! If it weren't for them, I'd probably never ask my mom for fast food so much as a kid.ThewaycoolKid

I understand that people do not want to feel as though their freedom is being encroached upon. However all of those defending the right of companies to market things to children however they please and that parents should be the ones should be the ones to step between kids and their happy meals need to understand an important fact. Their are people working for all these companies who have dedicated their lives to understanding how to manipulate people into buying things that are bad for them, or even things that they don't want.I admire the conservative ideal that individual personal responsibility should trump all, but that has to be counter balanced by the fact that it is unrealistic in today's world to expect that parents have the time, energy, and intellect to provide a healthy diet consistently to their children.

We all know obesity, specifically childhood obesity, has become a major social and medical problem across the world. Their are many reasons for this which probably include peoples overall dissatisfaction with their lives in this society. Without a doubt, however, the availability of cheap unhealthy food is having a huge part in this. So, my question to those who are acting as though San Francisco has taken a piss on George Washington's grave is this: What should be done about it? Should we let the world fall to obesity which will take a huge toll on health care, economies, and peoples overall enjoyment of life in the name of freedom, or should we take small steps like controlling what corporations can market to children, to help make America a healthier place?

I understand that people do not want to feel as though their freedom is being encroached upon. However all of those defending the right of companies to market things to children however they please and that parents should be the ones should be the ones to step between kids and their happy meals need to understand an important fact. Their are people working for all these companies who have dedicated their lives to understanding how to manipulate people into buying things that are bad for them, or even things that they don't want.I admire the conservative ideal that individual personal responsibility should trump all, but that has to be counter balanced by the fact that it is unrealistic in today's world to expect that parents have the time, energy, and intellect to provide a healthy diet consistently to their children.quetzalcoatI

We all know obesity, specifically childhood obesity, has become a major social and medical problem across the world. Their are many reasons for this which probably include peoples overall dissatisfaction with their lives in this society. Without a doubt, however, the availability of cheap unhealthy food is having a huge part in this. So, my question to those who are acting as though San Francisco has taken a piss on George Washington's grave is this: What should be done about it? Should we let the world fall to obesity which will take a huge toll on health care, economies, and peoples overall enjoyment of life in the name of freedom, or should we take small steps like controlling what corporations can market to children, to help make America a healthier place?quetzalcoatI

[QUOTE="ThewaycoolKid"][QUOTE="jman1553"]Seeing as it was the happy meal that really helped to contribute to me becoming really fat as a kid (and still trying to lose the weight now) yeah, I think it should be banned. Those damn toys.... those damn toys are from Hell! If it weren't for them, I'd probably never ask my mom for fast food so much as a kid.Serraph105

We live in a Republic where the states still have the power to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction so far as those laws do not conflict with federal law. For instance, many states ban the sale of alcohol on Sunday morning. Is this fair to the companies that make and sell the alcohol product? No, but since the state regulates the sale of alcohol, it is within the state's right to put legal restrictions on the sale of it. In this case, since there is no violation of federal law, the state has the right to enact the ban.

For everyone voting "no," why exactly is it unconstitutional?chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="jman1553"]Seeing as it was the happy meal that really helped to contribute to me becoming really fat as a kid (and still trying to lose the weight now) yeah, I think it should be banned. Those damn toys.... those damn toys are from Hell! If it weren't for them, I'd probably never ask my mom for fast food so much as a kid.ThewaycoolKid

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]For everyone voting "no," why exactly is it unconstitutional?Kokuro_Kun

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]For everyone voting "no," why exactly is it unconstitutional?Kokuro_Kun

[QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]For everyone voting "no," why exactly is it unconstitutional?Sajo7

I always find it odd when Americans complain about stuff being unconstitutional.

If they think it would improve the countries health then its fine, a piece of paper shouldn't influence that decision

I always find it odd when Americans complain about stuff being unconstitutional.

If they think it would improve the countries health then its fine, a piece of paper shouldn't influence that decision

toast_burner

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="Kokuro_Kun"]Its business pure and simple. The government should interact with that, thats not their job or duty. ITS NOT AMERICAN to get invloved in such activities. No one is forced to buy a happy meal.grape_of_wrath